GLBTetcs: What is your #1 issue you are voting on this election?

[kdpeters]

Poll question: GLBTetcs: What is your #1 issue you are voting on this election?

And should you choose to add, how does that translate into who you will vote for?

I consider myself active and involved in the GLBT community and for our causes and have been since 1990. Up until now, I'm used to feeling more in tuned feeling generally a shared perspective to varying degrees among the rest which I presume is based on a shared experiences and condition of equality denied.

Then came the 2008 primaries and I feel like suddenly I don't get it anymore. I just don't see why so many of us feel so favorably toward Clinton and unfavorably toward Obama. I feel the exact opposite.

I was thinking that maybe it's because we're all voting on other issues this year. If you think about it, GLBT issues may be one of the scant few things the Bushies DIDN'T manage to set back fifty years. We've held our own with a little progress in spite of them and their right-wing judges. It's everything else that he's fucked up beyond recognition. So bad that GLBT issues moved several notches down in priority in my decisions since 2000. After all, what good would it do to acheive equality when none of us have any civil rights anymore?

So maybe that explains it. I'm curious. What issue takes high priority for you?

[Fearless]

1. Iraq: The most pressing issue first.

[panader0]

2. Is this poll only for GLBT's? If not, I vote Iraq.

[kdpeters]

5. Well, I was hoping to get a general pulse of GLBT opinion here

I posted here because so much heated discourse about the McClurkin incident has taken place here, that I felt it might be useful for non-McClurkin GLBT opinions get a good airing. I felt there was a strong overwhelming GLBT response here that didn't represent me or my partner or my friends and GLBT contributors. I noticed a lot of it was a few people with a brazillian posts on the topic over and over again. I figured a poll would help get a better sense of overall opinion that might be different than what it seemed in the threads.

I also saw some well meaning straight-folks being treated in ways I thought unfair by some who seemed to be playing the "gay" card against on behalf of all of us which often reeked of primary-politics. That too was a lot more prevalent that I worried gave too much the wrong impression.

By all means, please post. But really, I was responding to the ever persistent McClurkin outrage and wanted to really challenge people to put it into perspective.

[movonne]

3. When and if we get out of Iraq...that will be a big step in fixing the

economy....so they really go hand in hand..

[kdpeters]

4. Iraq. I'm supporting Obama at this stage

After supporting Edwards for a full year. Clinton was my last choice. Obama my second to last. I had such great expectations when Clinton was elected to the Senate. I was so disappointed and disillusioned with her IWR vote -- as with most of the Senate. I just feel like she let us down time and time again when we needed her most. We needed someone to stand up and fight. Some did. Hillary caved. Iraq, PATRIOT ACT, Kyl-Lieberman. The way I see it, she had seven years in the Senate to show us what kind of leader she is when we desperately needed a leader. I saw self-serving risk avoidance. That's the opposite of leadership. That's not the kind of record that deserves a promotion.

I'm starting to warm up to Obama, but I try to make it a personal policy to keep my expectations low and my suspicions high. I don't think that's cynical as much as it's just good policy and civic duty. For that reason, I didn't find the McClurkin incident to be unexpected or out of the ordinary. It was disappointing, but not anything that really set his stances and actions apart from Clinton. They're both pretty good on our issues, but neither of them get it. They both have a demonstrated willingness to ditch us when our equality is inconvenient.

[NMMNG]

6. Um, what?

I was thinking that maybe it's because we're all voting on other issues this year. If you think about it, GLBT issues may be one of the scant few things the Bushies DIDN'T manage to set back fifty years. We've held our own with a little progress in spite of them and their right-wing judges. It's everything else that he's fucked up beyond recognition. So bad that GLBT issues moved several notches down in priority in my decisions since 2000. After all, what good would it do to acheive equality when none of us have any civil rights anymore?

No, they just set them back a minimum of 30 years. Do you recall the mid/late 70's, Anita Bryant, the push for Gay Rights and a few laws that came from it, the backlash from the RW that resulted in a slew of hateful laws against gay people? Now flash forward to GWB's administration and we have the same damn thing all over again. State after state writing discrimination into their constitution by prohibiting same-sex marriage , countless bans against same-sex adoption, gag laws that prohibit schools from even discussing the fact that LGBTs exist, etc. ENDA (minus TG protection) lies in limbo, the Matthew Shepard Act failed to pass, and the RRRW continues to hold their "deeply held religious beliefs" over the nation as a bludgeoning tool to keep any real talk of Human/Civil Rights for LGBTs a reality.

How can anybody seriously believe we haven't been thrust back decades?

[kdpeters]

7. Positive outlook I guess. I'm not denying the setbacks

But we are hardly back to the the seventies either socially or legally. That's what I have trouble understanding how you can seriously believe that.

Do you recall the mid/late 70's, Anita Bryant, the push for Gay Rights and a few laws that came from it, the backlash from the RW that resulted in a slew of hateful laws against gay people?

Not personally. I spent the seventies and eighties growing up gay in rural Georgia. I didn't come out until 1989 when I left for college. After nearly 17 years away, I'm back in my hometown and it's like a different world. Maybe the most change has occurred in places where the most change was needed. For you to say we've been set back thirty years seems to me that you're focusing much too much on the backlash(which is itself an indicator of achieving success), forgetting some huge significant legal advances, and completely ignoring the cultural sea change in attitudes that has quietly occurred over the past eight years leaving us in prime position to capitalize on both a swing in attitudes on our favor and a tidal wave of disgust toward the Republicans, Republican policies and Republican tactics. I'm telling you, my friend, I foresee the next 8 years being good to us. Very very good to us no matter which Democratic candidate becomes president. We're right on the edge of another leap forward.

I do try to stay informed on queer history so I am very familiar with Anita Bryant and her campaign. So I have to ask, don't you remember the Brigg's initiative in California going down to defeat by popular vote? That would not have happened before Stonewall, not even in California. The post-Stonewall activism and visibility had succeeded in making real lasting change. Even in the midst of so many setbacks during Anita's crusade, there was evidence that the progress was permanent and the backlash much smaller by comparison. I think the mini-DOMAs outbreaks and the other issues you mention are more akin to a backlash along these lines where ultimately, we've pretty much held onto most of what we gained in the last leap forward -- the 1990's. There is evidence of that all around today if you wish to look and see it. It was AIDS in 1980's, not primarily right-wing backlash, that actually dealt us a genuine setback to be measured in decades.

Progress comes in advances and retreats no matter what kind of progress it is. I'm sure you're familiar with the concept of two steps forward, one step back. We've just passed through our step back. Actually, I feel that on balance, it was more like a coast. I think we've fared better than expected through the Bush years. Every single other issue on my list will be more like trying to reverse the damage done over the past eight years, but on LGBT issues, we actually get to make progress without too much of a deficit. Look for a trans-inclusive ENDA to pass, DADT to be repealed, and equal marriage in ten states over the coming eight years. Possibly even a repeal of DOMA.

[NMMNG]

8. I'm only a few years older than you

But I know of the history because I learned it, and what I've seen is history repeating itself. The Buscho era was very much a repeat of what LGBTs endured some 30 years ago, yet to some extent worse because more than 20 state constitutions enshrined bigotry with their same-sex marriage bans. Thank goodness the FMA failed twice or we'd have it on a federal level.


Yes, the Briggs Initiative went down in flames and that was a milestone. But look how many similar laws have been implemented since then--even recently--and how many more continue to be proposed. TN has proposed a law that will prevent any cohabitating unmarried couples from adopting. There also was a law proposed there whereby students in elementary and middle schools could not be taught about any form of sexual orientation other than heterosexuality. Fortunately that one went down in flames. The ACLU had to step in on behalf of students in FL because the students couldn't even mention the fact that they were LGBT, have rainbow stickers on their clothing/personal belongings, etc. without the school declaring them "disruptive" or "part of an illegal organization". And, of course, the FL bigots want to outlaw any form of domestic partnership benefits (including those enjoyed by straight couples) so the horrid gays can't get benefits that are like those of married couples. The list goes on and on.


I wish I could be as optimistic as you, but given the current front-runner's proclivities to "reach out to" and "hear the voices of" the bigots who want nothing but to destroy us I don't see any real advancements for LGBT Human/Civil Rights occurring any time soon. Even if HRC were to suddenly take the helm, while I'd expect more from her I wouldn't see the significant leaps forward that you envision. Maybe I'm too beaten down by the past seven years, but that's just how I see it.

That's not going to stop me from fighting, of course.

[kdpeters]

11. Well, you do have an excellent point now that you list some of that stuff

It does indeed seem that elements of the current backlash are particularly nasty and mean-spirited, and that element of it does indeed ring familiar from back in Anita Bryant's days. I appreciate the reality check. Can't ever become complacent or comfortable with these folks. However, I'm not merely looking for the silver lining when I say that even in that, I see evidence of success. There were and still are, a lot of otherwise sane, principled people siding with the crazies, but they're not the ones really pushing this hateful mean-spirited stuff. That's the crazies. What's happening right now is those otherwise sane, principled folks are breaking ranks with the crazies making it more and more clear just how insane these people are as they go on about the gays even when faced with so many issues of critical importance facing the country. They're getting more and more shrill and more and more hateful because they're losing and they know it.

Even if HRC were to suddenly take the helm, while I'd expect more from her I wouldn't see the significant leaps forward that you envision. Maybe I'm too beaten down by the past seven years, but that's just how I see it.

The past seven years have been awful. As I said upthread, I find it good policy to keep expectations low and suspicions high. It's not so much that I have expectations as much as I feel a good many favorable factors seem like they are aligning just right. Maybe it's just me. I came out and came of age right on the cusp of the eighties and the nineties. My coming out song was "Vogue". :) That whole period influenced my outlook such a great deal. Maybe I'm just looking for it to happen once more. Who knows? We can always hope -- and I don't mean that in an Obama buzzword kind of way. ;) It's just the right word.

[NMMNG]

13. I'm just so weary of it all.

There were and still are, a lot of otherwise sane, principled people siding with the crazies, but they're not the ones really pushing this hateful mean-spirited stuff.

Fighting the crazies is something I expect to do, and something I can handle. But having to fight those who are supposedly on my side who are apologists for the crazies--that's what makes me want to :banghead:. They only make it that much harder because they're aiding and abetting the enemy.

The past seven years have been awful. As I said upthread, I find it good policy to keep expectations low and suspicions high. It's not so much that I have expectations as much as I feel a good many favorable factors seem like they are aligning just right.

Maybe my problem is that I pay so much more attention to the news about policy proposals and decisions than I used to years ago, particularly since I began blogging. In this instance I suppose ignorance might be bliss. If I had no idea what was going on across the nation I'd be much more content with the impression that we were better off than we are. (There are actually people out there who truly believe we have ENDA type protections, if you can believe that.)


I know it will get better. It's just that right now I'm battle weary.

:hi:

[Bluebear]

12. 'we are hardly back to the the seventies socially' - except at DU

And I am only half-facaetious :)

[NMMNG]

14. Be quiet, scab-picker

:P

[yardwork]

17. I think it differs a lot based on geography.

You are a male living in San Francisco. I'm a female living in North Carolina. I definitely noticed a major attack on gay people emanating from the * White House.

In response to your question, my "single issue" is getting a Democrat back in the White House, winning stronger Democratic control of Congress, and getting more Democratic governors and state legislators elected. Rather than gay rights, I see the crisis as being in terms of human rights.

[tekisui]

9. Thanks for the interesting post.

I met a lesbian couple early in the Primary, we were talking politics. They hoped for an Obama/Richardson ticket. At first I scratched my head. It was around the time of McClurkin and Richardson saying being gay was a choice.

On the way home, I realized that just because someone is gay, they do not necessarily vote exclusively on that issue. I felt like an idiot after I realized that. I don't vote exclusively on anything, myself. I appreciate the question you laid out, and I expect the results to be very similar to if you asked for the Democratic response.

[tekisui]

10. kick.

[Rowdyboy]

15. Control of the appointment of supreme court judges-otherwise all is lost....

We're one Reppublicn term away from a court that will destroy progressivism for 50 years.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

16. Other: All Of The Above.

I've never been a one issue voter nor will I ever be. I find most-important personal issues to be quite selfish, since for every issue that's most important to one person, there's a different one that's most important to another person. It's because I think outside of myself, and about issues that affect everybody, that I take them all into consideration when I vote. For example: The Iraq war is really important. So many are dying in this clusterfuck. But I doubt that some mother of two kids who is living on the streets hoping she could just find one more meal to get them through the day, gives a rat's ass at the moment about Iraq. I should be thinking about her, our troops, civilians in harms way, etc, in the same degree of urgency.


One edit: Oops! Was this only supposed to be for GLBT'rs? Totally overlooked that if so.